Prominent Texas lawyer Tony Buzbee has failed to defeat a $25 million defamation lawsuit brought by Mississippi attorney Marcy Croft, with U.S. District Judge Vincent Brown in Galveston, Texas, ruling that at this early stage of the case the court can reasonably infer that Buzbee made defamatory statements about Croft, who has represented rapper Shawn 'Jay-Z' Carter's entertainment company Roc Nation. The October 1, 2026 ruling marks the latest development in a sprawling, multi-front legal battle spanning nearly two years.
The dispute traces back to a lawsuit Buzbee filed in Manhattan federal court against Carter on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff who claimed she was drugged and raped by Carter and fellow rapper Sean 'Diddy' Combs when she was 13, at an afterparty for the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. Both Carter and Combs denied the allegations, and the plaintiff later withdrew the claims. The episode spawned a cascade of related litigation: Carter countersued Buzbee in California state court, and Buzbee in turn sued Croft, Roc Nation, and Carter's lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in Texas, alleging that Croft used agents who solicited his former clients in order to bring claims against him. Both of those cases were dismissed.
Croft's defamation suit is the mirror image of that failed action. Gregg Costa, a lawyer at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher representing Croft, said in a statement that they looked forward to holding the defendants accountable for the reputational damage they caused to a distinguished and honorable lawyer. Buzbee responded by email that Croft's lawsuit is a completely frivolous case that will massively backfire on her.
Buzbee rose to national prominence representing plaintiffs in mass-casualty and sexual-assault cases, and his filing of the since-withdrawn suit against one of hip-hop's most powerful figures drew enormous media attention and fierce pushback from Carter's camp. The defamation ruling means Buzbee and his law firm must now litigate on the defensive, with discovery likely to revisit the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that followed the collapse of the original assault case.
The ruling does not decide the merits of Croft's claims; it merely allows the case to proceed past the dismissal stage. Still, for a lawyer who built his reputation on aggressive plaintiff-side litigation, being ordered to answer a nine-figure defamation complaint is a striking reversal. The case will now move toward discovery, where internal communications from both sides could become public record.
Defamation cases involving lawyers and public figures face a steep climb in American courts. Under long-standing First Amendment doctrine, plaintiffs who are public figures must prove not only that a statement was false but that it was made with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. That standard is one reason many high-profile defamation suits fail before trial. Croft's case surviving the dismissal motion means the court found her allegations plausible enough to warrant discovery, a threshold that is modest but not automatic, and one that now opens both sides' communications to scrutiny.